Zack Snyder addresses the controversial ending of Man of Steel and why he feels it was necessary

There is a dangerous new trend that started this summer with IRON MAN 3 and STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS where the filmmakers are being forced to defend their creative decisions in making their films. The latest addition to that series is Zack Snyder and MAN OF STEEL. By now you have likely seen MAN OF STEEL and either loved it or hated it. I, personally, liked it a lot with just a couple of minor issues. So, if you have not seen the film, stop reading now because we will be entering Spoiler Country from here.

Still around? Okay, here we go.

At the end of MAN OF STEEL, after Superman and Zod have laid waste to Metropolis, they descend into the hall of a train station where a helpless family is cowering against a wall. In his rage at the death of his fellow Kryptonians, Zod unleashes his heat vision on the family in front of him, fighting against Superman's choke hold as he vows to kill these innocents. Superman is visibly shaken at the idea of the death of these bystanders and is forced to make a choice. He chooses humanity over his birth race and snaps Zod's neck.

So, the question becomes one that has not been uttered since Alan Moore's iconic 1986 comic "Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow?" where Superman must kill, a rule he vowed never to break. While that comic was the end of an era, MAN OF STEEL is the beginning of a new one and already has the hero breaking his one rule. Many fans of the character have been upset by this scene in the movie, something director Zack Snyder lobbied to include.

IndieWire transcribed this quote from a podcast Snyder had with Empire Online:

David [S. Goyer], Chris [Nolan] and I had long talks about it, and I said that I really feel like we should kill Zod, and that Superman should kill him. The 'Why?' of it for me was that if was truly an origin story, his aversion to killing is unexplainedâ¦ I wanted to create a scenario where Superman, either he's going to see [Metropolis' citizens] chopped in half, or he's gotta do what he's gotta do.â

It is interesting to look at MAN OF STEEL as a full origin tale. In this new world, Superman's rule had to originate from somewhere and seeing it happen this way does illustrate the point. But, where the film fails is not having him verbally swear never to kill again.

Or, maybe you disagree. Maybe this is a Superman for a new generation where the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one. Wait, wrong franchise. Do you think that Snyder, Goyer, and Nolan made the right call with having Superman kill Zod?

I am more concerned by the fact that everyone in Smallville now knows that Clark is Superman, as does Lois Lane and anyone else watching the events on the news. So how the hell can he use the alter ego when he starts working at The Daily Planet at the end? Oh, the glasses! I forgot!